Opinions Nov. 5, 2021

Keywords Opinions

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Timothy Kurzynowski
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson.
Criminal. Affirms the denial of Timothy Kurzynowski’s motion for compassionate release from his 96-month sentence for conviction for distribution of child pornography pursuant to § 603 of the First Step Act of 2018, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Finds the Southern District Court properly exercised its discretion in denying Kurzynowski’s motion. Also finds that under United States v. Broadfield, 5 F.4th 801 (7th Cir. 2021), the fact that Kurzynowski is vaccinated precludes a finding that the COVID-19 pandemic presents extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Victor L. Jordan v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Criminal. Dismisses Victor Jordan’s appeal challenging his aggregate 7 ½-year sentence for conviction of possession of cocaine, as a Level 5 felony, and resisting law enforcement, as a Level 6 felony. Finds no extraordinarily compelling reasons to restore Jordan’s forfeited right to appeal.

Daniel Widener v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Criminal. Affirms an order revoking Daniel Widener’s probation and order that he serves the previously suspended portion of his sentences for possession of methamphetamine and possession of a controlled substance, as Level 6 felonies. Finds sufficient evidence to support the violation finding. Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Ashley Dawn Penwell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Criminal. Affirms Ashley Penwell’s 2 ½-year sentence for Level 6 felony stalking. Finds her sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and Penwell’s character.

Meliek L. Steadmon v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Criminal. Affirms Meliek Steadmon’s conviction for Class B misdemeanor battery. Concludes that the victim’s statements in the 911 call describing Steadmon’s attack and her statements to an officer reiterating the attack were made under the stress of a startling event. Finds the Marion Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting those statements under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule.

J.L. v. H.S. (mem. dec.)
Protective order. Affirms the award of a protective order for H.S. against J.L. Holds that J.L. harassed H.S. with the multiple abuse and neglect reports he made to DCS. Also holds that the protective order is not contrary to the law.


Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}